Hear me on this idea about the guild fortress content!

ArchivedUser

So there will be 5 guild fortresses that are there to take for every guild.

So what if we devided the guild fortress for the 5 different guild sizes and so there will be a small, medium, big, huge and enormous guild castles in the world.

Like a  castle for the best guild of: (numbers can change ofcourse)
200-300 members
150-200 members
100-150 members
50-100 members
1-50 members

This allows for:
Every size of guild can compete vs the same size of guild that has the current castle
If you more of a big family guild or a strict 50 man hardcore guild you can aim for it!

Smaller guilds could compete vs the higher tier size castles
But higher ones could not declaire war on the lower ones!


So what are your thoughts on this?

ArchivedUser

Castles are usually the "creme de la creme" for the biggest and strongest. Rather than taking away from the big boys, Intrepid could think of other things smaller guilds could fight for. Claiming a castle with a 50 man guild sounds a bit funny.
Similar to Black Desert, smaller guilds could fight for certain parts of Verra, but those parts will still be owned by the respective capital node/castle.

ArchivedUser

FliP said:

Castles are usually the "creme de la creme" for the biggest and strongest. Rather than taking away from the big boys, Intrepid could think of other things smaller guilds could fight for. Claiming a castle with a 50 man guild sounds a bit funny.
Similar to Black Desert, smaller guilds could fight for certain parts of Verra, but those parts will still be owned by the respective capital node/castle.

Yea but they wanted small guilds to compete to so this would do that.

Also that 50 man guild with the best players lets say will never get that castle cause a more general guild with 300 will just dominate them.

ArchivedUser

I think something akin to Black Desert Online would be a good idea too. As FliP said, it wouldn't really make sense for a small guild to claim a castle

ArchivedUser

Never played BDO so i didnt know xD But imagen a world with 5 different size of castles. There is 1 super big one in the centre of the world thats for the 300. There are 4 others in the world but those decrease in size to the lowest one 50.

ArchivedUser

We will have to see how large of a benefit smaller, tighter guilds get vs large ones. Just like the Artisan tree they have said that guilds will have just so many points to put into different tiers. One of them being opening up larger caps on membership. So if your 300 person guild is missing something that a smaller 50 person guild has tiered into that makes a big difference in castle domination, you could see 50 person guilds reliably taking on bigger 300 person guilds. All just speculation till we get some cold, hard quotes further down the line.

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

We will have to see how large of a benefit smaller, tighter guilds get vs large ones. Just like the Artisan tree they have said that guilds will have just so many points to put into different tiers. One of them being opening up larger caps on membership. So if your 300 person guild is missing something that a smaller 50 person guild has tiered into that makes a big difference in castle domination, you could see 50 person guilds reliably taking on bigger 300 person guilds. All just speculation till we get some cold, hard quotes further down the line.

Yes i hope that will be good.

ArchivedUser

Fleelix said:

FliP said:

Castles are usually the "creme de la creme" for the biggest and strongest. Rather than taking away from the big boys, Intrepid could think of other things smaller guilds could fight for. Claiming a castle with a 50 man guild sounds a bit funny.
Similar to Black Desert, smaller guilds could fight for certain parts of Verra, but those parts will still be owned by the respective capital node/castle.

Yea but they wanted small guilds to compete to so this would do that.

Also that 50 man guild with the best players lets say will never get that castle cause a more general guild with 300 will just dominate them.

A small guild cannot compete with a 300 man guild anyway. So if they want smaller guilds to be able to compete for something, they will have to add something other than castles.

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

We will have to see how large of a benefit smaller, tighter guilds get vs large ones. Just like the Artisan tree they have said that guilds will have just so many points to put into different tiers. One of them being opening up larger caps on membership. So if your 300 person guild is missing something that a smaller 50 person guild has tiered into that makes a big difference in castle domination, you could see 50 person guilds reliably taking on bigger 300 person guilds. All just speculation till we get some cold, hard quotes further down the line.

FliP said:

Fleelix said:

FliP said:

Castles are usually the "creme de la creme" for the biggest and strongest. Rather than taking away from the big boys, Intrepid could think of other things smaller guilds could fight for. Claiming a castle with a 50 man guild sounds a bit funny.
Similar to Black Desert, smaller guilds could fight for certain parts of Verra, but those parts will still be owned by the respective capital node/castle.

Yea but they wanted small guilds to compete to so this would do that.

Also that 50 man guild with the best players lets say will never get that castle cause a more general guild with 300 will just dominate them.

A small guild cannot compete with a 300 man guild anyway. So if they want smaller guilds to be able to compete for something, they will have to add something other than castles.

Well if the guild talent system allows it its fine.

Otherwise they need to add something else that will be compettive and also rewarding. But all big guilds can still compete for the big guild castle so i dont see a problem with my idea though.

ArchivedUser

Warhammer Online had a scaling system for Keep rewards based on participation in relation to guild size. We were fairly small, only about 40 members, but we often held keeps for more than 24 hours.

We would be able to reap some nice rewards for our efforts, due to the system in place, but were always eventually rolled by larger guilds.

There is a quote somewhere (there are some awesome quote hunters here, but I am not one of them) from one of the devs about smaller guilds playing their part and being useful within alliances, which sounded to me like an alliance would benefit more from a mix of guild sizes than one comprised only of huge zerg guilds.

I like the idea of watchtowers or small citadels be able to be captured only by smaller guilds (or at least provide increased rewards for a smaller guild control). These could offer benefits to an alliance, so it would be one way for an alliance to always wish to factor in a mix of guild sizes.

Nice food for thought, @Fleelix.

ArchivedUser

Bajjer said:

Warhammer Online had a scaling system for Keep rewards based on participation in relation to guild size. We were fairly small, only about 40 members, but we often held keeps for more than 24 hours.

We would be able to reap some nice rewards for our efforts, due to the system in place, but were always eventually rolled by larger guilds.

There is a quote somewhere (there are some awesome quote hunters here, but I am not one of them) from one of the devs about smaller guilds playing their part and being useful within alliances, which sounded to me like an alliance would benefit more from a mix of guild sizes than one comprised only of huge zerg guilds.

I like the idea of watchtowers or small citadels be able to be captured only by smaller guilds (or at least provide increased rewards for a smaller guild control). These could offer benefits to an alliance, so it would be one way for an alliance to always wish to factor in a mix of guild sizes.

Nice food for thought, @Fleelix.

Thank you

ArchivedUser

I'm completely against this idea. I think this argument is the same as to why people argue against 40-man raids. I don't disagree that there are smaller guilds that have potential and I don't want to demean their work, but the 300-scale will be where competitive world/castle PvP is at. Since it's stated to only be five castles, wouldn't you want the biggest, most world altering guilds to be the ones competing to hold them?

Excuse any grammatical errors, I just woke up.

ArchivedUser

Tirithel said:

I'm completely against this idea. I think this argument is the same as to why people argue against 40-man raids. I don't disagree that there are smaller guilds that have potential and I don't want to demean their work, but the 300-scale will be where competitive world/castle PvP is at. Since it's stated to only be five castles, wouldn't you want the biggest, most world altering guilds to be the ones competing to hold them?

Excuse any grammatical errors, I just woke up.

Its all preference the bigger guilds can still compete for the big castle, the more smaller or more serious/requirement guilds can also do that.

But I get it where you are against it. Intrepid needs to find a balance or something else for smaller guilds.

For myself I have 2 sides of a guild i want to go to. A really hardcore group with high join requirements or more of a semi/hardcore guild with alot of members. But thats yet to be decided cause we are depening on these sort of info.

ArchivedUser

A 50 player guild might be able to bring almost all of their players online at the same time to raid. A 300 player guild might not be able to bring all 300 members on for a raid.

I would also like to see the guild leveling options, IS has stressed they are trying to allow for smaller guilds to compete versus larger ones. I don't think limiting in game resources to guilds of specific sizes is a good way to do that.

ArchivedUser

Coming from this quote, I believe there will be castles for every size of a siege. I would like it if the most dominent castle sieges are 250v250 and the least dominent (smallest) castle siege is 50v50. So the smaller guilds will fight over taking that small castle and bigger guilds will fight over bigger castles. In this scenerio, you will also avoid the problem of 'big guilds destroying small ones' because they will have their own objective to achieve. In fact, big guilds could be weaker on smaller sizes against the small guilds, too.

As a small guild, I wouldn't aim to take control of the biggest castle in the game and I am not going to complain about sieges being too big for that castle. I know I'm a small guild and I know my place, I have my own objectives, obviously different from the 500 men communities.

ArchivedUser

It seems like you're insinuating that larger guilds don't need to have stringent requirements to remain competitive. Just because a guild is small doesn't mean it should be competitive too. Sure there will be big guilds that attempt to be competitive without requirements - but that just means that a smaller guild should have an easier time to build up with stricter requirements to fight that guild. I don't think this game is about equal ability to siege castles, but equal opportunity to siege castles. If you try to do something impossible, it should be impossibly hard.

ArchivedUser

AeonAuron said:

Coming from this quote, I believe there will be castles for every size of a siege. I would like it if the most dominent castle sieges are 250v250 and the least dominent (smallest) castle siege is 50v50. So the smaller guilds will fight over taking that small castle and bigger guilds will fight over bigger castles. In this scenerio, you will also avoid the problem of 'big guilds destroying small ones' because they will have their own objective to achieve. In fact, big guilds could be weaker on smaller sizes against the small guilds, too.

As a small guild, I wouldn't aim to take control of the biggest castle in the game and I am not going to complain about sieges being too big for that castle. I know I'm a small guild and I know my place, I have my own objectives, obviously different from the 500 men communities.

Yes exactly that! @AeonAuron

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

A 50 player guild might be able to bring almost all of their players online at the same time to raid. A 300 player guild might not be able to bring all 300 members on for a raid.

I would also like to see the guild leveling options, IS has stressed they are trying to allow for smaller guilds to compete versus larger ones. I don't think limiting in game resources to guilds of specific sizes is a good way to do that.

There will be guild lvling options.

ArchivedUser

You're quite the good idea fairy lately!

ArchivedUser

Karthos said:

You're quite the good idea fairy lately!

Thank you

ArchivedUser

Guild fortresses in Ashes are not the same thing as castles.


Source: Kickstarter FAQ

We don't know the specific criteria for unlocking guild fortresses yet, but it has been stated that fortresses will have mechanics geared to both larger and smaller guilds. 



Does this go toward what you are proposing @Feelix?

ArchivedUser

lexmax said:

Guild fortresses in Ashes are not the same thing as castles.


Source: Kickstarter FAQ

We don't know the specific criteria for unlocking guild fortresses yet, but it has been stated that fortresses will have mechanics geared to both larger and smaller guilds. 



Does this go toward what you are proposing @Feelix?

Yea i mix them up alot but in all things i said i meant fortresses.


Also that does answer some questions but not my idea. Like will those bufs be able to compare a 50man guild vs a 300 man? If thats the case those bufs are **** op. xD

ArchivedUser

Fleelix said:

Also that does answer some questions but not my idea. Like will those bufs be able to compare a 50man guild vs a 300 man? If thats the case those bufs are **** op. xD

I don't think it would be like that but forcing guilds to suffer a set back for recruiting a lot of members pressures them to utilize all their members. If you spend your "guild points" to get to the member slots and mass recruit but only use 10-15% of your members at one time then you will be at a disadvantage.

It hopefully will encourage people to form closer communities rather then zerg recruiting so you can mob over your enemy.

ArchivedUser

McStackerson said:

Fleelix said:

Also that does answer some questions but not my idea. Like will those bufs be able to compare a 50man guild vs a 300 man? If thats the case those bufs are **** op. xD

I don't think it would be like that but forcing guilds to suffer a set back for recruiting a lot of members pressures them to utilize all their members. If you spend your "guild points" to get to the member slots and mass recruit but only use 10-15% of your members at one time then you will be at a disadvantage.

It hopefully will encourage people to form closer communities rather then zerg recruiting so you can mob over your enemy.

Whats the set back for a big guild? If you are a dedicated 200-300 person guild you can still compete for the same castle as all other big ones.

Everything is made with a decision so should be the size of your guild if you are the leader.

ArchivedUser

Lets try out a scenario. So what if you idea gets accepted and each castle siege can only be attanded with guilds that have a certain amount of players, there could be a zerg alliance that consists of a couple of guilds and have a agreement that each guild can own the castle for a week. That would be aproximately 1200 people if there is a 4 guild alliance so each guild gets the castle for 1 week each month.

What should other guilds do to get a chance to own a castle? Get zerged during every siege as the remaining 900 players will kill of everyone that tries to claim the castle other than the guild whose turn it is to own the castle this week or should they be forced to reduce their numbers to be able to compete for another castle? I think that's ridiculous.

All castles should be fair game for everyone. If you decide to have a small scale guild, that is your decision. If Intrepid Studios want smaller guilds to compete for something as well, they can either try their luck at castle sieges or IS can come up with some small scale content.

ArchivedUser

FliP said:

Lets try out a scenario. So what if you idea gets accepted and each castle siege can only be attanded with guilds that have a certain amount of players, there could be a zerg alliance that consists of a couple of guilds and have a agreement that each guild can own the castle for a week. That would be aproximately 1200 people if there is a 4 guild alliance so each guild gets the castle for 1 week each month.

What should other guilds do to get a chance to own a castle? Get zerged during every siege as the remaining 900 players will kill of everyone that tries to claim the castle other than the guild whose turn it is to own the castle this week or should they be forced to reduce their numbers to be able to compete for another castle? I think that's ridiculous.

All castles should be fair game for everyone. If you decide to have a small scale guild, that is your decision. If Intrepid Studios want smaller guilds to compete for something as well, they can either try their luck at castle sieges or IS can come up with some small scale content.

First of all guild fortresses are solo guild content. Cause only 1 guild can occupy it. So the main "reason" for a 5 different tiers of castles is because other wise 5 zerg guilds would have it. The bigger guilds compete for the one big fortress and with that the glory for the best big guild is bigger then just 5 big guilds in general cause that allows for more room cause the best ones already have a fortress.

Cause if there where 5 guilds fortresses all owned by 5 zerg guilds (wich you clearly want cause my idea is crap in your oppinion)  there are probbaly 2/3 guilds that own it that are just big while the other 1/2 are clearly the best but the others are just there cause they have alot of members. A dedicated hardcore guild cant compete with that so there just sitting there waiting for another zerg guild to be made to get them of.



This allowes for every size of guild to compete vs the same lvl of guild thats in thier range of castles.

ArchivedUser

You didn't get the point. How are guild fotresses solo guild content? Did you even read my previous post?

I'm am not trying to make your idea look bad, I am just pointing out its flaws. And you clearly did not understand my previous post, so let me simplify:

Only one guild can claim a castle at a time, but that doesn't mean that guilds will fight solo/alone against other guilds. There certainly will be (if there won't, I'll take the opportunity and make one) alliances that will share castle ownership.

How that would look like:
There are Guild 1 (Guild for simplicity will be called G from now on), G2, G3 and G4. All 4 Gs make an agreement that each G will own the castle for a week. First week, it is G1s turn to own the castle, so G2, G3 and G4 will fight anyone that try to prevent G1 from taking the castle. Rinse and repeat, but every week a different G will own the castle until it is G1s turn again.

Lets say this happens in the 300 man guild bracket, what should other guilds without an alliance do? Kick out guild members so their can participate in the lower tier bracket?

I hope it is more clear to you now. If it still isn't, feel free to ask and I will elaborate more.

ArchivedUser

FliP said:

You didn't get the point. How are guild fotresses solo guild content? Did you even read my previous post?

I'm am not trying to make your idea look bad, I am just pointing out its flaws. And you clearly did not understand my previous post, so let me simplify:

Only one guild can claim a castle at a time, but that doesn't mean that guilds will fight solo/alone against other guilds. There certainly will be (if there won't, I'll take the opportunity and make one) alliances that will share castle ownership.

How that would look like:
There are Guild 1 (Guild for simplicity will be called G from now on), G2, G3 and G4. All 4 Gs make an agreement that each G will own the castle for a week. First week, it is G1s turn to own the castle, so G2, G3 and G4 will fight anyone that try to prevent G1 from taking the castle. Rinse and repeat, but every week a different G will own the castle until it is G1s turn again.

Lets say this happens in the 300 man guild bracket, what should other guilds without an alliance do? Kick out guild members so their can participate in the lower tier bracket?

I hope it is more clear to you now. If it still isn't, feel free to ask and I will elaborate more.

I get it.

Well if that happens the can only fix that probblem with a instanced fight or a real guild vs guild fight. A real siege to the fortress where its only them and the last guild standing gets the spoils.

If alliances will rule the fortresses that would be sad, cause nodes are there for alliances imo.

But we will have to wait to see if alliance can take a part in the fortress content or not. Also if alliances would happen in the high bracket it would defintly also be in the lower ones right?

ArchivedUser

The easiest fix is not implementing this and keeping castles as they are.

Instances castle sieges, who would determine which guilds fight in which instance? Random or player choice?

I get your idea for the suggestion, but there are too many flaws. Small guilds should get their own small scale content they can compete for or, as people like to say nowadays, 'git gud'.

ArchivedUser

FliP said:

The easiest fix is not implementing this and keeping castles as they are.

Instances castle sieges, who would determine which guilds fight in which instance? Random or player choice?

I get your idea for the suggestion, but there are too many flaws. Small guilds should get their own small scale content they can compete for or, as people like to say nowadays, 'git gud'.

Instanced around the guilds fortress. Since there are 5 in different locations, maybe mountains, maybe seas.

That would allow for different defence tactics and assault ones for each castle and some creativity with it.

Just like a siege in all medieval movies. Maybe with a objective, capture or kill thier commander. To get more depth in the defending and attacking strategies.

ArchivedUser

The following quote might help you guys sharpen your exchange. While castle control swapping might be a thing till it is noticed and further controls put into place to stop such behaviour, it will be monthly and not weekly. Guilds wanting to control castles are going to need to focus mostly on that activity, since you have to go through a series of 3 weekly node sieges leading up to the the main castle siege. As we get closer to Alpha 1 and the systems are more gelled into place we will get more information, and actual testing will be done. No one has any idea outside of IS what those other guild perks in the trees might be, but say there is one that allows a guild to build siege equipment at a faster rate to bolster defense/attack, and it is far enough up a dedicated tree that large guilds focused on the the zerg mentality can't get that perk, then you will see smaller guilds being able to compete with zergs. Also, there has been nothing stated that is will be locked to any number of guilds trying each month. You could very well have 10 unaligned guilds attacking the same castle, with all the temporary alliances and backstabbing that occurs as they get closer to the final goal. Don't underestimate how far your other guild leader buddy is willing to betray you to get his chance at a dragon for a month.
"But it was our turn to grab the final flag!!"
"Oh, sorry, I must have misclicked then stood there while I capped by mistake?"
 Going to be good fun for everyone.